Is everybody equal in atheism?

[Angrboda]

Vinny, do you still want to pretend to be an atheist? OK, I believe you. Since you are an atheist, you should lead me an altar boy in blasphemy.....

You know, you're the last person on this forum who should be carrying this banner because it's equally likely that you're an atheist pretending to be a theist.

Now I admit that this person's presentation has rubbed me the wrong way, but we're not assessing the person here — that would be a form of ad hominem. The only thing you should be assessing is the merit of his arguments and what he has to say. Is he annoying? You betcha. But he does raise some interesting questions, even if his formulations of them or his position on them is not always strongly defensible.

I think only festive1 and Tempus and genkaus have really addressed the core question, and all this "definition of atheism" crap is just a side effect of a defect in the way Vinny posed the question.


I think ultimately the question has to do with religious evil, and the attitude of atheists toward that. It would seem that, historically, religion and people doing bad things have more than passing familiarity. Is religion causing people to do bad things, or is it simply bad people whose religion enables them? And even if religion does cause people to do bad things, what is the answer? Do we seek to have religion completely extinguished, or just seek to extinguish the mistreatment of people and those aspects of religion which enable it? And does religion itself harm or cost those who are infected with it? (Is it a public health issue, like stamping out polio? Or mental illness?) And there are several overlapping questions here. Even if religion is evil, and ideally should be abolished, attempting to do so may do more harm than good. This comes up in relation to Dawkins' comments about parents teaching their children their religious beliefs and child abuse. And when is the harm of religion unjustifiable, and when is it justifiable. (Smoking has enormous societal costs, but we generally don't seek to outlaw it.) And what if you don't feel religion is inherently evil, and suggest a laissez faire position vis a vis religion, how do you defend that against those who see religion as evil incarnate that must be destroyed?


Perhaps Vinny is a theist. I don't really care. He could be the pope for all that it matters. Address the question and the argument, not the man.